Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 30 of 30
Thanks Tree31Thanks

Thread: Forbes names Michelin ‘America’s Best Employer’

  1. #21
    Chaos in fourteen lines Minotaur's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    20,464
    Thanks
    16517

    From
    USA
    Trump gets jealous easy so success for a person or corporation's that make him look poor by comparison ends with Trump trying to kill competition.
    SEE: Amazon's Bezos.

  2. #22
    Chaos in fourteen lines Minotaur's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    20,464
    Thanks
    16517

    From
    USA
    Quote Originally Posted by labrea View Post
    Have we punished Saudi Arabia for 911.
    Trump supporters worry more about less people killed in Paris, Denmark or London. They don't worry about Saudi planned 3,000 killed on 9/11, classrooms filled with 1st and 2nd graders killed, 17 teens killed in their high school, or 58 killed in a Vegas concert.

  3. #23
    Dick with my Buzz...Try DebateDrone's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    35,295
    Thanks
    29983

    From
    SWUSA
    Quote Originally Posted by Wonderer View Post
    The agreement was never approved by the Senate in the first place. That is why it isn't a "treaty" under the U.S. Constitution. (All of which was discussed at great length at the time the agreement was made, as well.) Yes, there are arguments on either side of the issue as to whether it is legally binding (as I noted above.) And there are even more arguments on either side of whether it is politically and morally binding and what the repercussions of the U.S. leaving the agreement are/should be.
    The fact is that what the agreement did was lift sanctions that were agreed to by the US and the EU.

    Just because the US does not participate in the agreement does not reinstate those sanctions nor does it force the EU, Russia or China to reinstate the sanctions.

    The US would have to install new sanctions on Iran and force...by way of threat of sanctions to the EU et al to comply with the USs sanctions.

    That is a whole web of US intimidations and threats.

    None of the JCPOA nations have indicated a willingness to roll over.
    Thanks from galatin

  4. #24
    Flibbertigibbet Wonderer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2014
    Posts
    24,336
    Thanks
    16195

    From
    Missouri
    Quote Originally Posted by DebateDrone View Post
    The fact is that what the agreement did was lift sanctions that were agreed to by the US and the EU.

    Just because the US does not participate in the agreement does not reinstate those sanctions nor does it force the EU, Russia or China to reinstate the sanctions.

    The US would have to install new sanctions on Iran and force...by way of threat of sanctions to the EU et al to comply with the USs sanctions.

    That is a whole web of US intimidations and threats.

    None of the JCPOA nations have indicated a willingness to roll over.
    I don't disagree with you.

  5. #25
    Member
    Joined
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    3,152
    Thanks
    2053

    From
    Switzerland
    Quote Originally Posted by Wonderer View Post
    The agreement was never approved by the Senate in the first place. That is why it isn't a "treaty" under the U.S. Constitution. (All of which was discussed at great length at the time the agreement was made, as well.) Yes, there are arguments on either side of the issue as to whether it is legally binding (as I noted above.) And there are even more arguments on either side of whether it is politically and morally binding and what the repercussions of the U.S. leaving the agreement are/should be.
    In an organized world you need to follow the rules of internationallaw and you cannot play alone. It is a basic rule and I do not understand why you bring words like politically and morally binding. in pulling out President Trump violates commitments made toward others and try toimpose to other a double standard which authorizes the USA because of their status of superpower not to respect common rules. It brings disorder especiallywhen the treaty or agreement violated has provisions to settle problems if Iran would not respect it…. It means that the Us do not give a damn and do as they like. It is not a responsible attitude.
    Thanks from NightSwimmer

  6. #26
    Flibbertigibbet Wonderer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2014
    Posts
    24,336
    Thanks
    16195

    From
    Missouri
    Quote Originally Posted by galatin View Post
    In an organized world you need to follow the rules of internationallaw and you cannot play alone. It is a basic rule and I do not understand why you bring words like politically and morally binding. in pulling out President Trump violates commitments made toward others and try toimpose to other a double standard which authorizes the USA because of their status of superpower not to respect common rules. It brings disorder especiallywhen the treaty or agreement violated has provisions to settle problems if Iran would not respect it…. It means that the Us do not give a damn and do as they like. It is not a responsible attitude.
    When words or concepts have specific legal meanings, I make a point to distinguish between "legal," "political," "moral," etc. Non-attorneys may use terms and contexts interchangeably. But when it comes down to determining the legal effect of contracts, agreements, documents, I think it important to be precise.

    Yes, there is international law which should be respected. But there is also the U.S. Constitution and a system of laws. And the former doesn't automatically trump (if you'll pardon the pun) the latter in all ways and on all matters. When the Iran Deal was made, it was quite clear that it was NOT a treaty by U.S. standards as it was not sent before the Senate for approval. It was an Executive Agreement.
    Thanks from bajisima

  7. #27
    Veteran Member bajisima's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    44,471
    Thanks
    26710

    From
    New Hampshire
    Quote Originally Posted by galatin View Post
    In an organized world you need to follow the rules of internationallaw and you cannot play alone. It is a basic rule and I do not understand why you bring words like politically and morally binding. in pulling out President Trump violates commitments made toward others and try toimpose to other a double standard which authorizes the USA because of their status of superpower not to respect common rules. It brings disorder especiallywhen the treaty or agreement violated has provisions to settle problems if Iran would not respect it…. It means that the Us do not give a damn and do as they like. It is not a responsible attitude.
    In the US, it doesnt become a treaty unless it has Senate approval. This isnt something new.
    Thanks from Wonderer

  8. #28
    Member
    Joined
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    3,152
    Thanks
    2053

    From
    Switzerland
    You seem prisoner of internal US wording…. Are the US anyway above international law ? When you get into a multilateral agreement you cannot walk away without respecting rules. It seems that your reasoning is poisoned by the idea that the US are so unique that they are not to abide to international law (do other nations have the same opportunities ?) and the deal made with Iran is ruled by international law,
    Thanks from NightSwimmer

  9. #29
    Thought Provocateur NightSwimmer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    36,799
    Thanks
    34327

    From
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Wonderer View Post
    When words or concepts have specific legal meanings, I make a point to distinguish between "legal," "political," "moral," etc. Non-attorneys may use terms and contexts interchangeably. But when it comes down to determining the legal effect of contracts, agreements, documents, I think it important to be precise.

    Yes, there is international law which should be respected. But there is also the U.S. Constitution and a system of laws. And the former doesn't automatically trump (if you'll pardon the pun) the latter in all ways and on all matters. When the Iran Deal was made, it was quite clear that it was NOT a treaty by U.S. standards as it was not sent before the Senate for approval. It was an Executive Agreement.

    It was, and it was an Executive Agreement made by the United States of America -- not by Barack Obama. Donald Trump reneged on the agreement as the United States of America -- not as Donald Trump.

    It actually means something to be the President of the United States of America.

  10. #30
    Flibbertigibbet Wonderer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2014
    Posts
    24,336
    Thanks
    16195

    From
    Missouri
    Quote Originally Posted by NightSwimmer View Post
    It was, and it was an Executive Agreement made by the United States of America -- not by Barack Obama. Donald Trump reneged on the agreement as the United States of America -- not as Donald Trump.

    It actually means something to be the President of the United States of America.
    Yes it does.
    Thanks from NightSwimmer

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 7th December 2017, 03:14 PM
  2. Replies: 47
    Last Post: 19th September 2016, 11:20 AM
  3. Forbes Smackdown
    By MaryAnne in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 120
    Last Post: 30th January 2015, 04:30 PM
  4. Forbes: Obamacare is working
    By Davocrat in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 686
    Last Post: 15th September 2011, 03:45 PM
  5. The Forbes 400
    By Blueneck in forum Economics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 14th December 2010, 08:31 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed